Alan Milsom v Integral Energy [2003] NSWSC 352

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Alan Milsom v Integral Energy [2003] NSWSC 352 HEARING DATE(S) : 1/04/03,2/04/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Cripps AJ DECISION : See para 37

CATCHWORDS : Damages - severe burns - plaintiff given light work - light work abandoned before trial LEGISLATION CITED : Workers Compensation Act 1987 s151L CASES CITED : Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR1 PARTIES : Alan Milsom - Plaintiff Integral Energy - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20535/00 COUNSEL : P. Blacket SC, W.D.H. Walsh - Plaintiff M. Williams SC, R. Sheldon - Defendant SOLICITORS : Turner Freeman Solicitors - Plaintiff Leigh Virtue & Associates - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Cripps AJ

30th April 2003

20535/00 – Alan Milsom v Integral Energy

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff was electrocuted on 26 March 1999 in the course of his employment as a linesman by the defendant. Liability has been admitted and the matter before the court is for an assessment of damages only. 2 He suffered 15 % electrical burns involving his abdomen, right forearm and left hand. He was admitted to the Concord Hospital Burns Unit and had a number of operations for debridement and skin grafting. He was discharged from hospital on 7 May 1999 and thereafter had physiotherapy treatment and daily dressing changes by a private nurse. He was readmitted to Concord Hospital on 15 July 1999 and was operated on by Dr Perkins for release of right carpal tunnel and synovectomy. 3 According to the doctors the plaintiff made a remarkable recovery. He resumed work on light duties in March 2000. A position was created for him. He could no longer do the work of a linesman. He resigned in October 2002. 4 It is unnecessary for me to detail the medical reports because there does not seem to be any dispute between the parties concerning the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and their long term consequences. 5 The plaintiff now has significant reduction in manual dexterity and strength in both hands as a result of the accident. He developed an abdominal hernia and has gross abdominal scaring. Dr Masson who operated on him in 1999 expressed the opinion in October 2000 that the plaintiff had sustained 30 % bodily disfigurement. He was of the opinion that he had sustained 55 % loss of the permanent use of his right arm below the elbow and 62 % permanent loss of efficient use of his left arm below the elbow. 6 On 9 February 2001 Dr Haertsch examined the plaintiff. He found amongst other things, a significant lack of dexterity and power in the right hand which is clawed. He was of the opinion that the plaintiff had developed an abdominal hernia because of the loss of abdominal musculature resulting in him having continually to wear a corset. He had significant scarring of his right forearm and left hand. Dr Haertsch thought he had 60 % of the most severe case of severe bodily disfigurement, 60 % of the loss of the efficient use of the right arm and 30 % loss of the use of the left arm. 7 Dr Drew examined him in February 2003 and after referring to his disabilities which included lack of sensation in both hands concluded that his condition had stabilised but that he would probably benefit from manipulation of the right shoulder under anaesthetic. 8 Dr Perkins operated on the plaintiff on 15 April 1999 and later on 15 July 1999. In his report dated May 2002 he expressed the opinion that the plaintiff had made a "miraculous recovery" but pointed out that he had permanent disabilities in both hands and his abdomen which would markedly reduce his capacity to do the type of work he had undertaken before the accident. Because of his abdominal hernia he was unable to undertake heavy lifting and the injuries to both hands restricted his ability to perform fine motor tasks. Dr Perkins was of the opinion that the plaintiff's condition would not improve and he did not think further surgery would improve his hand. 9 The plaintiff's recovery was beyond the expectation of his treating doctor and was in no small part due to his positive attitude and his diligence in adhering to his rehabilitation regime. 10 The plaintiff now wears a sock abdominal corset with velcro fastened from behind. Dr Drew was of the opinion that the plaintiff might benefit from manipulation of the right shoulder under anaesthetic. However and subject to this his disabilities are permanent. 11 I record that in general I accept the medical evidence adduced by the plaintiff with the qualification that I do not accept the opinion of Dr Lewis-Enright to the effect that in the future the plaintiff would suffer post traumatic stress disorder. The plaintiff has been seen by a psychiatrist who thought it was remarkable that he was able to function as well as he did bearing in mind the injuries he suffered. He was of the opinion however that he was not suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and given the length of time since the accident he is unlikely to do so in the future. Dr Morse believed his self-esteem had suffered and his confidence had been lowered by reason of his inability to undertake physical activity of the type he undertook before the accident. 12 The plaintiff was on born on 30 April 1944. He was almost 55 at the time of the accident and had a life and working life expectancies of 24 years and 6 years respectively. 13 The plaintiff had worked for the defendant for 33 years as a linesman. He did not accept promotion. 14 Before the accident he played touch football, tennis, surfed, fished, went bush walking and was generally very active. He still can walk, ride a bicycle, drive motor vehicles and mow lawns albeit with some difficulty. He is unable to function as a linesman and, now that he has resigned his light duties, I do not think he will be re-employed in the future. 15 The issues to be determined are as follows.